Cover not available
Part of
East and West of The Pentacrest: Linguistic studies in honor of Paula Kempchinsky
Edited by Timothy Gupton and Elizabeth Gielau
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 33] 2021
► pp. 135–156

Chapter 7
Spanish impersonal se in control infinitivals and the ungrammaticality of se se sequences

| University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
| University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
In this paper, we offer an analysis of impersonal se (Impse) constructions in control infinitivals. We claim that se itself spells out the valued version of the [uD] feature that Holmberg (2010) and Roberts (2010) propose is a property of T in consistent null subject languages. As a corollary, we link Impse constructions to the consistent null subject status of a language (in the spirit of Belletti, 1982). Moreover, we claim that in Impse constructions there is a projected null external argument (pro se) interpreted as non-referential because of the valued version of Holmberg’s [uD] feature in T that se spells out. We also argue that ungrammatical sequences of Impse and other se result from the featural deficiency of pro se; specifically, it lacks a specification for number.
Keywords: Romance impersonal se, Spanish, control infinitives, feature deficiency
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Assumptions regarding Impse
    • 2.1Impse spells out T[D]
    • 2.2Projected pro se
  • 3. The non-referentiality of pro se
    • 3.1 Pro se does not introduce a discourse referent
  • 4.Impse in infinitives
  • 5.The features of se
    • 5.1The phi-features of pro se
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 10 May 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.33.7mac
References (46)
References
Alexiadou, A., & Anagnostopoulou, E. (1998). Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 491–539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Schäfer, F. (2006). The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In M. Frascarelli (Ed.), Phases of interpretation. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, G. (2011). Two classes of transitiv verbs: Evidence from Spanish (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Basilico, D. (2010). The se clitic and its relationship to paths. Probus, 22, 271–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A. (1982). Morphological passive and pro-drop: The impersonal construction in Italian. Journal of Linguistic Research, 2(4), 1–34.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2001). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1988). On si constructions and the theory of arb . Linguistic Inquiry, 19(4), 521–581.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, R. (2007). Impersonal si sonstructions. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Miguel Aparicio, E. (1992). El aspecto en la sintaxis del español: Perfectividad e impersonalidad. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1998). Impersonal se constructions in Romance and the passivization of unergatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 29(3), 399–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Folli, R., & Harley, H. (2005). Consuming results in Italian and English: Flavors of v. In P. Kempchinsky & R. Slabakova (Eds.), Syntax, semantics, and acquisition of aspect (pp. 95–120). Springer.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, M. (2007). Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 25(4), 691–734. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallego, A. (2016). Three types of prepositions in Spanish SE sentences. Consequences for cross-dialectal studies. Dialectología, 17, 51–70.Google Scholar
Harley, H. (2013). External arguments and the mirror principle: On the distinctness of voice and v. Lingua, 125, 34–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A. (2005). Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(4), 533–564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Null subject parameters. In T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts, & M. Sheehan (Eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory (pp. 88–124). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. (1999). Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 30(1), 69–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. (2000). Parameters and universals. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kempchinsky, P. (2004). Romance SE as an aspectual element. In J. Auger, J. C. Clements, & B. Vance (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to Romance linguistics (pp. 239–256). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. (1999). Control and extraposition: The case of super-equi. In. P. Tamanji, M. Hirotani, & N. Hall (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th conference of the North Eastern Linguistic Society (pp. 213–228). GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Legate, J. (2014). Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, J. E. (2017). An implicit projected argument in Spanish impersonal and passive-se constructions. Syntax, 20(4), 353–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, J. E., Carvalho, J., & Maddox, M. (2016). An argument from Brazilian Portuguese for a syntactically projected implicit argument. In C. Hammerly & B. Prickett (Eds.), Proceedings of 46th annual meeting of the North Eastern Linguistics Society (pp. 307–316). GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
MacDonald, J. E., & Maddox, M. (2018). Passive se in Romanian and Spanish: A subject cycle. Journal of Linguistics, 54(2), 389–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, J. E., & Melgares, J. (n.d.). On (un)grammatical clitic sequences in impersonal se constructions (Unpublished manuscript).
MacDonald, J. E., & Vázquez-Lozares, A. (n.d). On (un)grammatical sequences of se in Spanish. (Unpublished manuscript).
Maddox, M. (n.d.). Licensing conditions on null generic subjects in Spanish. (Unpublished manuscript).
Martins, A. M., & Nunes, J. (2016). Passives and se constructions. In W. L. Wetzels, J. Costa, & S. Menuzzi (Eds.), The handbook of Portuguese linguistics (pp. 318–337). Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Identity avoidance with reflexive clitics in European Portuguese and the theory of control. Linguistic Inquiry, 48(4), 627–649. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mendikoetxea, A. (1992). On the nature of agreement: The syntax of Arb se in Spanish (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of York.Google Scholar
(2008). Clitic impersonal constructions in Romance: Syntactic features and semantic interpretation. Transactions of the Philological Society, 106(2), 290–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ordóñez, F. (n.d.). On the nature of the impersonal SE: Case, interpretation and variation. (Unpublished manuscript).
Ordóñez, F., & Treviño, E. (2016). Agreement and D.O.M. with se: A comparative study of Mexican and Peninsular Spanish. In M. Kato, & F. Ordóñez (Eds.), The morphosyntax of Portuguese and Spanish in Latin America (pp. 236–258). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Otero, C. P. (1985). Arbitrary subjects in finite clauses. In I. Bordelois, H. Contreras, & K. Zagona (Eds.), Generative studies in Spanish syntax (pp. 81–110). Foris.Google Scholar
(2002). Facetas del se . In C. Sánches López (Ed.), Las construcciones con se (pp. 165–206). Visor libros.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Introducing arguments. The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rivero, M. L. (2002). On impersonal reflexives in Romance and Slavic and semantic variation. In J. Camps & C. R. Wiltshire (Eds.), Romance syntax, semantics and L2 acquisition (pp. 169–195). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. (2010). A deletion analysis of null subjects. In T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts, & M. Sheehan (Eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory (pp. 58–87). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Saab, A. (2002). Asignación de caso en construcciones con se impersonal. Actas del IX congreso de la Sociedad Argentina de Lingüística (en CD-ROM). Universidad Nacional de Córdoba.Google Scholar
Schäfer, F. (2008). The syntax of (anti-)causatives. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2011). On the new passive. Syntax, 14, 148–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suñer, M. (1982). Syntax and Semantics of Spanish Presentational Sentence-Types. Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
(1983). Proarb. Linguistic Inquiry, 14(1), 188–191.Google Scholar
(1990). Impersonal se passives and the licensing of empty categories. Probus, 2(2), 209–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

MacDonald, Jonathan E. & Almike Vázquez-Lozares
2022. Chapter 7. On (un)grammatical sequences of ses in Spanish. In Points of Convergence in Romance Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 360], ► pp. 128 ff. DOI logo
MacDonald, Jonathan E. & Jeriel Melgares
2021. On (Un)Grammatical Clitic Sequences in Impersonal se Constructions. In Unraveling the complexity of SE [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 99], ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Satterfield, Teresa
2021. Chapter 9. Dual competence in dual language learners. In East and West of The Pentacrest [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 33], ► pp. 189 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.